Greatest Treat to Humanity - Half of Japan May be Destroyed

[Old Rocks]

Now they are building terminals here on the West Coast to ship coal to China. A small increase in the yearly increase of use represents large decrease in the time to depletion of the resource. And every year the cost increases because the coal that is easy to get out is taken first.

How Much Coal Is Left - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy

Based on U.S. coal production for 2010, the U.S. recoverable coal reserves represent enough coal to last 239 years. However, EIA projects in the most recent Annual Energy Outlook (January 2012) that U.S. coal production will increase at about 0.4% per year for the period 2009-2035. If that growth rate continues into the future, U.S. recoverable coal reserves would be exhausted in about 168 years if no new reserves are added.

 

[Old Rocks]

Greatest Short-Term Threat to Humanity - Half of Japan's land mass is about to become uninhabitable & unusable. Because Japan is not able to contain the Fukushima disaster.

Fukushima disaster is still Growing Larger

Clean energy = wasted money.
Video silliness, "There's no such thing as a not harmful level".
OMG! So much idiocy, so little time.

clean energy is wasted money?

only til it gets up and running... then it becomes more cost efficient.

i'm wondering why you have a vested interest in doing things that actively destroy our environment. i'd think you'd want to maximize our safety. as a parent, i know i do.

Very interesting point here. In Oregon, we have built enough wind turbines that now we have to idle some of them at times because of the excess amount of electricity produced. Even as other areas of the nation are short of electricity. We desperately need to start building a real national grid. And connect it to the areas that have high energy density potential.

 

[Unkotare]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I would usually agree with you on this QW, yet 25 years later no one seems to want to live in Chernobyl and I would not want to live close to TMI even though other reactors are operating, something about human error and a material we have very limited control over...

I like the "Flat Earth" retort, very good...but you want to ignore the fact that these areas are destroyed beyond many, many life times...

That would be like putting your head in the sand...

let me specify.

accidents last year in the US are higher than the worlds nuclear accidents since conception.

Nuclear power is the safest, permanent alternative fuel but is regulated into oblivion by the poorly informed.

In the '50s when they were promoting nuclear, we were told that the reactors would be completely failsafe, and that they would generate electricity so cheaply that it would not have to be metered.

Reality. Nuclear the most expensive electricity. Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Fukashima.
Nuclear has a place in the mix, but it is hardly the answer.

Reality. Nuclear the most expensive electricity.

Prove it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Greatest Short-Term Threat to Humanity - Half of Japan's land mass is about to become uninhabitable & unusable. Because Japan is not able to contain the Fukushima disaster.

Fukushima disaster is still Growing Larger

Clean energy = wasted money.
Video silliness, "There's no such thing as a not harmful level".
OMG! So much idiocy, so little time.

clean energy is wasted money?

only til it gets up and running... then it becomes more cost efficient.

i'm wondering why you have a vested interest in doing things that actively destroy our environment. i'd think you'd want to maximize our safety. as a parent, i know i do.

Renewables don't actively destroy our environment?
I've seen sone pureed birds who'd like to talk to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The only problem with your claim is that the area around Chernobyl isn't a "wasteland." It's overpopulated with wildlife.

No - A 15 mile radious around Chernobyl (1020 square miles, 653,000 acres) of land is so bad that 2/3rds fewer trees, inscects or animals are living to this day. Much of that is genetically mutant.

Yes - The other contaminated 15,000 square miles of property is populated with some older people, plants & wildlife some of witch is genetically mutant.

Fukushima will be worse than Chernobyl.

Wildlife thriving after nuclear disaster? Radiation from Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents not as harmful to wildlife as feared


Do you think that just repeating yourself endlessly will make whatever speculation you currently favor true?

He is a conspiracy nut, facts are part of the coverup.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would usually agree with you on this QW, yet 25 years later no one seems to want to live in Chernobyl and I would not want to live close to TMI even though other reactors are operating, something about human error and a material we have very limited control over...

I like the "Flat Earth" retort, very good...but you want to ignore the fact that these areas are destroyed beyond many, many life times...

That would be like putting your head in the sand...

let me specify.

accidents last year in the US are higher than the worlds nuclear accidents since conception.

Nuclear power is the safest, permanent alternative fuel but is regulated into oblivion by the poorly informed.

In the '50s when they were promoting nuclear, we were told that the reactors would be completely failsafe, and that they would generate electricity so cheaply that it would not have to be metered.

Reality. Nuclear the most expensive electricity. Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Fukashima.
Nuclear has a place in the mix, but it is hardly the answer.

Reality, a bunch of fear mongering, anti science, idiots that think solar power is going to solve all are problems are preventing us from building reactors that are fail safe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Greatest Short-Term Threat to Humanity - Half of Japan's land mass is about to become uninhabitable & unusable. Because Japan is not able to contain the Fukushima disaster.

Fukushima disaster is still Growing Larger

Clean energy = wasted money.
Video silliness, "There's no such thing as a not harmful level".
OMG! So much idiocy, so little time.

clean energy is wasted money?

only til it gets up and running... then it becomes more cost efficient.

i'm wondering why you have a vested interest in doing things that actively destroy our environment. i'd think you'd want to maximize our safety. as a parent, i know i do.

Solar power has been subsidized for decades. The reason it is not up and running is it doesn't work. The environmentalists hate it because it destroys acres upon acres of pristine desert habitat, killing off flora and fauna that is unique. To top it off, every time the wind blows you have to send someone out to clean off all those panels, so the maintenance cost is a lot higher than projected, and then you have to pay people to sit out there and guard the site because, believe it or not, there are people who are willing to drive out to the middle of nowhere and steal copper.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Clean energy = wasted money.
Video silliness, "There's no such thing as a not harmful level".
OMG! So much idiocy, so little time.

clean energy is wasted money?

only til it gets up and running... then it becomes more cost efficient.

i'm wondering why you have a vested interest in doing things that actively destroy our environment. i'd think you'd want to maximize our safety. as a parent, i know i do.

Very interesting point here. In Oregon, we have built enough wind turbines that now we have to idle some of them at times because of the excess amount of electricity produced. Even as other areas of the nation are short of electricity. We desperately need to start building a real national grid. And connect it to the areas that have high energy density potential.

Interesting point, you are full of shit.

Renewable energy in the north-west: Tilting at windmills | The Economist

 

[KissMy]

Wildlife thriving after nuclear disaster? Radiation from Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents not as harmful to wildlife as feared


Do you think that just repeating yourself endlessly will make whatever speculation you currently favor true?

I was getting my info from PBS - Revisiting Chernobyl: "A Nuclear Disaster Site of Epic Proportions" by Miles O'Brien. (video below) They were showing the 30km "Red Forest" where there were few plants & animals. Many were deformed or mutant. Thanks for your Science Daily Link, because is likely a more reliable analysis than PBS.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbcbyUK5rqQ"]Revisiting Chernobyl: Nuclear Disaster Site[/ame]

"Large city 60 km from meltdowns has 3-4 times radiation levels at which Soviets evacuated everyone. Hotspots up to 500-700 times normal" - July 3, 2011 "Damaged Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 just had 204 “new” fuel rods inserted before quake. The No. 4 reactor building has a total of 1,535 fuel rods, or 460 tons of nuclear fuel, in it. The 7-story building itself has suffered great damage, with the storage pool barely intact on the building’s third and fourth floors... If Unit 4 pool gets a crack from quake and leaks, it would be end for Tokyo. Doesn’t have to be large tremor, already shaken many times."
.

 

[Unkotare]

"Large city 60 km from meltdowns has 3-4 times radiation levels at which Soviets evacuated everyone. Hotspots up to 500-700 times normal" - July 3, 2011 "Damaged Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 just had 204 “new” fuel rods inserted before quake. The No. 4 reactor building has a total of 1,535 fuel rods, or 460 tons of nuclear fuel, in it. The 7-story building itself has suffered great damage, with the storage pool barely intact on the building’s third and fourth floors... If Unit 4 pool gets a crack from quake and leaks, it would be end for Tokyo. Doesn’t have to be large tremor, already shaken many times."
.

Where is that quote from? It makes no sense.

 

[KissMy]

"Large city 60 km from meltdowns has 3-4 times radiation levels at which Soviets evacuated everyone. Hotspots up to 500-700 times normal" - July 3, 2011 "Damaged Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 just had 204 “new” fuel rods inserted before quake. The No. 4 reactor building has a total of 1,535 fuel rods, or 460 tons of nuclear fuel, in it. The 7-story building itself has suffered great damage, with the storage pool barely intact on the building’s third and fourth floors... If Unit 4 pool gets a crack from quake and leaks, it would be end for Tokyo. Doesn’t have to be large tremor, already shaken many times."
.

Where is that quote from? It makes no sense.

"Large city 60 km from meltdowns has 3-4 times radiation levels at which Soviets evacuated everyone. Hotspots up to 500-700 times normal"

"Damaged Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 just had 204 “new” fuel rods inserted before quake."

"The No. 4 reactor building has a total of 1,535 fuel rods, or 460 tons of nuclear fuel, in it. The 7-story building itself has suffered great damage, with the storage pool barely intact on the building’s third and fourth floors"

"If Unit 4 pool gets a crack from quake and leaks, it would be end for Tokyo. Doesn’t have to be large tremor, already shaken many times."

 

[Liability]

Here's an interesting piece already over one year old (with links contained within):

Fascinating reading. Not happy reading, though.

The Long-Term Impact of Fukushima - Technology Review

 

[Liability]

Believe me, I GET it. Consider the source.

Still, if some of the things reported by this piece are true, then there is plenty of reason to worry about the long term effects of the Fukishima meltdowns (AND how far ranging those effects might be).

Fukushima fall-out has already caused death in the U.S., Dr. Sherman and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano of the Radiation and Public Health Project have determined.

Dr. Sherman and Mangano cross-checked data on infant mortality from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with records of Fukushima fallout from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and found that infant mortality spiked by an average of 35 percent in eight cities west of the Rocky Mountains, including San Francisco and Seattle, and by 48 percent in Philadelphia during the ten weeks after the accident began on March 11, 2011.

Infant mortality defined as death of children from birth to one year old is considered an early measure of radiation effects because there is rapid growth and cell division at this stage, increasing the impacts of radioactivity. Cancer is a subsequent consequence.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/05

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Believe me, I GET it. Consider the source.

Still, if some of the things reported by this piece are true, then there is plenty of reason to worry about the long term effects of the Fukishima meltdowns (AND how far ranging those effects might be).

Fukushima fall-out has already caused death in the U.S., Dr. Sherman and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano of the Radiation and Public Health Project have determined.

Dr. Sherman and Mangano cross-checked data on infant mortality from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with records of Fukushima fallout from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and found that infant mortality spiked by an average of 35 percent in eight cities west of the Rocky Mountains, including San Francisco and Seattle, and by 48 percent in Philadelphia during the ten weeks after the accident began on March 11, 2011.

Infant mortality defined as death of children from birth to one year old is considered an early measure of radiation effects because there is rapid growth and cell division at this stage, increasing the impacts of radioactivity. Cancer is a subsequent consequence.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/05

Increased from what to what?
What's the standard deviation of these infant mortality numbers?
I'd take this claim with a very large grain of salt.

 

[Liability]

Believe me, I GET it. Consider the source.

Still, if some of the things reported by this piece are true, then there is plenty of reason to worry about the long term effects of the Fukishima meltdowns (AND how far ranging those effects might be).

Fukushima fall-out has already caused death in the U.S., Dr. Sherman and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano of the Radiation and Public Health Project have determined.

Dr. Sherman and Mangano cross-checked data on infant mortality from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with records of Fukushima fallout from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and found that infant mortality spiked by an average of 35 percent in eight cities west of the Rocky Mountains, including San Francisco and Seattle, and by 48 percent in Philadelphia during the ten weeks after the accident began on March 11, 2011.

Infant mortality defined as death of children from birth to one year old is considered an early measure of radiation effects because there is rapid growth and cell division at this stage, increasing the impacts of radioactivity. Cancer is a subsequent consequence.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/05

Increased from what to what?
What's the standard deviation of these infant mortality numbers?
I'd take this claim with a very large grain of salt.

I don't know. I'd have to ask rderp for the "science" of it.

But I presume that the middle sentence provides the point of departure for further investigation of the bona fides:

"Dr. Sherman and Mangano cross-checked data on infant mortality from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with records of Fukushima fallout from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and found that infant mortality spiked by an average of 35 percent in eight cities west of the Rocky Mountains, including San Francisco and Seattle, and by 48 percent in Philadelphia during the ten weeks after the accident began on March 11, 2011."

I DID look (just now);

The good doctors have some "detractors:"

3 strikes and you’re out! Sherman & Mangano does it again… « Nuclear Power? Yes Please

So your grain of salt advice is definitely worthy of consideration!

 

[Unkotare]

"If Unit 4 pool gets a crack from quake and leaks, it would be end for Tokyo. Doesn’t have to be large tremor, already shaken many times."

That program was obviously intended to be sensationalistic, and the 'transcript' provided was extremely incomplete.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Believe me, I GET it. Consider the source.

Still, if some of the things reported by this piece are true, then there is plenty of reason to worry about the long term effects of the Fukishima meltdowns (AND how far ranging those effects might be).



https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/05

Increased from what to what?
What's the standard deviation of these infant mortality numbers?
I'd take this claim with a very large grain of salt.

I don't know. I'd have to ask rderp for the "science" of it.

But I presume that the middle sentence provides the point of departure for further investigation of the bona fides:

"Dr. Sherman and Mangano cross-checked data on infant mortality from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with records of Fukushima fallout from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and found that infant mortality spiked by an average of 35 percent in eight cities west of the Rocky Mountains, including San Francisco and Seattle, and by 48 percent in Philadelphia during the ten weeks after the accident began on March 11, 2011."

I DID look (just now);

The good doctors have some "detractors:"

3 strikes and you’re out! Sherman & Mangano does it again… « Nuclear Power? Yes Please

So your grain of salt advice is definitely worthy of consideration!

Typical lying liberal fearmonger.

 

[saveliberty]

The OP promised me a treat. I am of course, profoundly disappointed.

 

[Liability]

Increased from what to what?
What's the standard deviation of these infant mortality numbers?
I'd take this claim with a very large grain of salt.

I don't know. I'd have to ask rderp for the "science" of it.

But I presume that the middle sentence provides the point of departure for further investigation of the bona fides:

"Dr. Sherman and Mangano cross-checked data on infant mortality from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with records of Fukushima fallout from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and found that infant mortality spiked by an average of 35 percent in eight cities west of the Rocky Mountains, including San Francisco and Seattle, and by 48 percent in Philadelphia during the ten weeks after the accident began on March 11, 2011."

I DID look (just now);

The good doctors have some "detractors:"

3 strikes and you’re out! Sherman & Mangano does it again… « Nuclear Power? Yes Please

So your grain of salt advice is definitely worthy of consideration!

Typical lying liberal fearmonger.

Could be.

There IS a lot we don't yet know. But the good doctors do seem to have a credibility issue.